
TO THE 





ADDR® (IF l T. CARSON, 


TO THE 


Ohio Council of Deliberation, 

N. M. J., 


At Its Annual Session, May, 1890. 






THE NEW YORK 

PUBLIC LIBRARY 


ASTO?, LENOX AND 
TILDEN FOUNDATIONS. 

A—R 


TO THE 


ADDRESS of E. T. CARSON 


TO THE 

OHIO COUNCIL OF DELIBERATION, N, M, J. 

At its Annual Session, May, 1890 . 


E. T. Carson, Cincinnati, Ohio, 

Dear Sir :—Through the grace of your Lordship, I am in receipt of a printed 
copy of the proceedings of the Ohio Council of Deliberation N. M. J. for 1890. 
Why you should send such a document to a stranger to that body, and one of the 
“clandestine,” “illegitimate,” and “irregular” Cerneau Scottish Rite Masons, I do 
not understand, unless it is to be taken as a token that you have thus thrown 
down the gauntlet for a renewal of hostilities and take this method of “knocking 
the chip from my shoulder,” or else to give me an opportunity to read some more 
of your characteristic spleen against the “Cerneaus.” However, I accept it as a 
challenge, and by way of preface to my remarks will say, that your address and 
appendix thereto must have greatly pleased the members of your “emasculated” 
mutual admiration society, or they would not have ordered 5000 copies of the 
same printed for general distribution. Ordinarily I would pay no attention to 
such “vaporings of a disordered brain” as are contained in the aforesaid docu¬ 
ment, but as inasmuch as your co-admirers have seen fit to make a rather exten¬ 
sive publication of the same, I will at least attempt to disabuse the minds of some 
people of your own greatness and importance. You seem to have had a terrible 
nightmare over the Cerneau question, for you say, “The clandestine Scottish Rite 
organization in Ohio, known as the ‘Cerneaus/ have pretty much given up the 
contest within the pale of Masonry and have resorted to the civil Courts, and in 
several cases have applied for and been granted temporary injunctions,” etc. I 
suppose you said this because you thought it would please the “boys” and help to 
keep up their courage. You also say, “In their petitions for these injunctions 
they set up the most revolting, disgusting falsehoods, and the vituperative abusive 
epithets which they apply to the Grand Master and to many of the most prom¬ 
inent Masons of Ohio, are really shocking.” Well, well, Carson, it is a burning 
shame that anyone should file a petition in a Court in Ohio containing allegations 
that so terribly shock the fine, delicate, sewer-bred sensibilities of your Angelic 
nature. You must have been suffering from the shock when you wrote the fol¬ 
lowing : “One swears, ‘That he has the right not only to be represented in the 






Grand Lodge, but to visit the same when in session.’ ” And that “Every Mason 
except the knave knows this sworn statement to be a lie.” Now, Carson, the most 
charitable thing that can be said of you for writing that kind of “rot” and expect¬ 
ing the Masons of Ohio to believe it, is, that you must be in a state of mind closely 
bordering on senile dementia. You are evidently laboring under the delusion that 
the Grand Lodge of Ohio is an assembly of N. J. Scottish Rite Masons only, and 
that the common, every day Master Mason is not in it. Yet every report since it 
was organized states, that the Grand Lodge of Ohio has been opened as a lodge of 
Master Masons in due form. You probably do not know that in the printed pro¬ 
ceedings of this same Grand Lodge for 1889, under the head of “Landmarks,” the 
following are set forth to the credit of M. W. Bro. Jno. W. Simons, of N. Y.: 

“8. That when a man becomes a Mason he not only acquires membership in 
the particular lodge that admits him, but, in the general sense, he becomes one of 
the whole Masonic family; and hence he has the right to visit, Masonically, every 
regular lodge.” Pro. 1889, p. 318. 

“14. The right of the Craft at large to be represented in Grand Lodge, and 
to instruct their representatives.” p. 319. 

Also on p. 319 there is quoted from M. W. Bro. Albert G. Mackey’s Masonic 
Jurisprudence, pp. 17-39, the following as the unchangeable Landmarks of 
Masonry: 

“ 12. The right of every Mason to be represented in all general meetings of 
the Craft and to instruct his representatives. And 14. The right of every Mason 
to visit and sit in every regular lodge.” 

These declarations, from time immemorial, have been taken and accepted as 
some of the unalterable laws and landmarks of Masonry, and have even received 
the sanction of the Grand Lodge of Ohio, and yet you have the sublime * gall ’ to 
say that every Mason except the knave knows such statements to be a lie. Do 
you mean to be understood as having branded Jno. W. Simons and Albert G. 
Mackey as liars? Do you think the fraternity of Freemasons are a lot of idiots? 
Do you claim to be in full possession of all your mental faculties and are willing 
to go on record as the author of such a vile and malicious slander on the learn¬ 
ing, ability and and memories of two such eminent and respected Craftsmen as 
Simons and Mackey? Is there anythirg too low lived, mean, contemptible, or 
vicious for you to say or do in regard to the “Cerneaus” when you get thoroughly 
“shocked?” You might truthfully say, that in 1883, you and thirty-eight other 
kindred spirits of the N. M. J. entered into an “unholy, unlawful, infamous and 
disgraceful conspiracy,”^wherein you bound yourselves under oath that you 
would “hold allegiance to the said Supreme Council (N. J.) and be loyal thereto 
as the supreme authority of the Rite, so long as I may continue to reside within its 
jurisdiction, will hold illegal and spurious every other body that may be estab¬ 
lished within its jurisdiction, claiming to be a Supreme Council, and every other 
body of said Rite within the same jurisdiction, that does not hold its powers med¬ 
iately or immediately from said Supreme Council, and will hold no Masonic com¬ 
munication whatever with any member of the same, nor allow them to visit any 
Masonic body of which I may be a member.” 

That in 1887, in furtherance of that conspiracy, your friend Stacker Williams, 
then Gr. M. of the Grand Lodge of Ohio, in reply to the question, “Has a lodge 
the right or authority to instruct its W. M. how he should vote on a given ques- 



— 5 — 


tion imGrand Lodge ? ” answered “NO ! ” He also deposed from office, all lodge 
officers who were members of any other Scottish Rite body than the Northern or 
Southern Jurisdictions. Again in 1888, through the same kind of machinations, 
you and your fellow-conspirators managed to get the Gr. Lodge to resolve 

“That any Mason subordinate to the authority of this Grand Lodge who 
shall hereafter take, or receive, or communicate, or be present at, or assist any one 
to take or apply for said degrees, or any of them, shall be subject, after due trial 
under the code, to expulsion from all the rights and privileges of Masonry.” 

And in 1889, got the Gr. M. to amend the “test oath” as follows: 

“Furthermore, I do not hold membership in, or allegiance to any Cerneau, or 
other body claiming to be Masonic, that has been declared clandestine by the 
Grand Lodge of Ohio.” 

Bouvier defines a conspiracy to be “a combination of two or more persons by 
some concerted action to accomplish some criminal or unlawful purpose.” How 
well you have succeeded, will be determined by the courts in due time. You say 
“another swears that Grand Master Burdick is a Sovereign Grand Inspector Gen¬ 
eral of the 33° ” and that this statement is false. Now this statement may be a 
little premature. Nevertheless, if he is accorded proper recognition for his zeal and 
devotion he will “get there” all right. Stacker Williams received his reward, so 
will Burdick. 

Further, in regard to these injunction cases, you say: 

“A curious feature connected with these temporary injunctions is when they 
are granted, through some influence of some power, or some decision new found, 
the Court does not interfere with them. In one instance a temporary injunction 
was pending for eighteen months and is still pending. Nothing very temporary 
in this” 

This slur on the Courts is a contemptible piece of business to engage in, 
for a man that claims as much as you do, but it shows the small calibre that you 
are made of. You would impute bad motives to the Courts because they have, 
for the time being, called a halt in your nefarious conspiration. “No rogue ere 
felt the halter draw with good opinion of the law.” You seem to have an idea 
that you “own the earth,” and that your title of Sovereign Grand Inspector Gen¬ 
eral gives you immunity from answering for any of your “cussedness,” even to the 
Courts, all of which is in accordance with the provisions of Article XX of the 
Secret Constitutions which you have the audacity to deny, yet adhere to in all 
their disgusting details. “Actions sometimes speak louder than words.” The 
Associated Press also comes in for a share of your venom when you say, “There 
seems to be some close tie between the Cerneaus and the Associated Press agents. 
Whether a tie of money only, or one of love and affection, I am unable to say.” 
Go it, Enoch. Yours is another case of Don Quixote fighting the windmill. You 
say, “As a rule, ‘Cerneau’ Masons are a disreputable lot.” Now it cannot be that 
you wish to have it understood, from your previous statements, that such a “dis¬ 
reputable lot” are able to control two such important factors as the Courts and 
the Associated Press are in this era of civilization? No; you just wanted to say 
something real mean of the “Cerneaus,” so you called them a “disreputable lot.” 
That was a little short-sighted in you, Carson, for some people are liable to con¬ 
strue such remarks as very high compliments to the Cerneaus, and you surely 
ought not to let anything of that kind happen if you can prevent it. While we are 


— 6 — 


discussing “disreputable lots,” I will ask you if the scene that was enacted in the 
lobby of the Weddell House on Thursday P. M., September 18, 1890, by your rival, 
Babcock, your Secretary, Paige, an alleged newspaper man by the name of 
Watrous on one side, and a Plain Dealer reporter on the other, was not one of the 
most disgraceful exhibitions of the ungentlemanly, undignified and un-Masonic 
capabilities of some of the members of the N. J. Sup. Council that ever happened ? 
And if the fact that the details of that disgusting affair have been suppressed, is 
not further evidence of the shallowness of the claims of some of the leading mem¬ 
bers of that concern to being even gentlemen ? In your blind rage you would say 
almost anything about the Cerneaus, even taking the chances of violating your 
obligations as a Mason, as well as Section 6828 of the Revised Statutes of Ohio, 
which provides that “whoever writes, prints, or publishes any false or malicious 
libel of, or concerning another, shall be fined not more than five hundred dollars, 
or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.” 

The most amusing thing in the whole document to a “Cerneau”, is your “tale 
of woe” regarding the establishment of a new Consistory at Cleveland. That was 
not our funeral, so we won’t quote any of it, but if you could have heard some of 
the not very endearing terms which were and still are applied to you, by your own 
people in regard to that matter, you would be madder than a “Cerneau” could pos¬ 
sibly make you and do his level best. Some even expressed the thought that the 
cause of Freemasonry in Ohio would not suffer any if you should die. Another 
that it would have been promoted if you had been expelled when charges were 
preferred against you in the Grand Lodge in 1850. Another that they (your North¬ 
ern Ohio brethren) would make you want to write your name “Eunuch” instead of 
Enoch before they got through with you. Another that they would have a Con¬ 
sistory or-right here in Cleveland, regardless of Carson. You can imagine 

many other expressions “more forcible than elegant”, that ha ve been used by them, 
which would not look well in print. It is plain that you got a big dose of your 
own medicine, and it “maka da monk sick.” 

Your admonition to your brethren to keep themselves “free from imposture 
and deceit” is presumably a warning to beware of “Cerneaus.” 

Your Appendix “B” is a fair specimen of the sneaking, cowardly, dirty work 
that you can do, and its publication shows that there are a number of other prom¬ 
inent and distinguished Masons (?) in Ohio who are ready and willing to get down 
and wallow in the mire along with you. The most fitting comparison that can be 
made to it is “the last bray of a dying jackass.” They ought to have had at least 
a million copies published, so that every Mason in the U. S. could get it and see 
what weak, driveling “rot” you can get up. You publish this stuff in such a way 
as to convey the impression that your reply had been sent to a gentleman in this 
city, whose name you did not disclose. You knew the name of the gentleman 
who filed the answer, yet you lacked the common decency to send it to him, or to 
ask leave of the Court to become a party to the action, and make your reply (?) 
in an honorable way. You evidently don’t know that some of the members of 
Forest City Lodge have filed a demurrer to the petition whereby they admit that 
there is “an unholy, unlawful, infamous and disgraceful conspiracy;” they admit 
that the case has been prejudged both by the Lodge and the Grand Lodge; in 





short, they admit all of the allegations in the petition to be true. You cite decis¬ 
ion 53 of the Grand Lodge in such a way as to convey the idea that the laws and 
edicts of a Grand Lodge, are higher than the constitution and laws of the State, 
and that when a man becomes a Mason he surrenders his liberty of thought and 
conscience. Burdick, G. M., lately gave expression to this kind of doctrine, and I 
want to say to you, that if that is your kind of Masonry, and you propose to run it 
on that kind of a plan, it had better be suppressed for the good of the country and 
its institutions. However, no Mason but some of the “Mighty Lords and Heavenly 
Kings” of the N. M. J. like yourself, believe it. You seem to ignore the fact that 
any Grand Lodge constitution, law, or edict that is subversive of the principles and 
groundwork of Masonry, has no binding force or effect on anyone, and that is 
just what this stuff about Grand Lodge laws and edicts being higher than the 
laws of the State amounts to. You insist that a Mason shall “maintain and sup¬ 
port the constitution, laws and edicts of the Grand Lodge” without question, and 
at the same time wholly disregard the reciprocal obligations to be kept on the 
part of a Grand Lodge, viz.: That the laws, edicts and obligations it imposes, 
“shall not be subversive of the principles and groundwork of Masonry,” and will 
not conflict with any duty a Mason owes to his God, his country, his neighbor, or 
himself. You are the most unconscionable, unmitigated perverter of the truth I 
ever came across when you say the Northern Supreme Council never recognized 
any secret constitutions, and that the “Cerneaus” do novo . It is the old cry of “stop, 
thief.” You know very well that the constitutions of 1762 are one thing, and the 
secret regulations or constitutions appended thereto are another. That the con¬ 
stitution of the U. S. Council is only founded on the Constitution 0/1762 , while your 
N. J. Council has adopted the regulations of 1762, and that the so-called Grand Con¬ 
stitutions of 1786, which they have also adopted, are a fraud and a forgery, and 
while you deny your adoption of these outrageous secret Constitutions, or 
regulations, as they are more properly termed, you conform to and practice the 
same to the strict letter. Article II of your own Constitution says : “These Con¬ 
stitutions, with the regulations of 1762 and the Grand Constitutions of 1786, etc.” 
are the laws governing the Freemasonry of the A. A. S. R. in this (Northern) Jur¬ 
isdiction. This reminds me of a witness who was testifying in a lunacy case in 
the Probate Court of this County a few days ago. He was asked if the patient 
had delirium tremens, and answered, “No; he has the ‘jim jams.’ ” So you don’t 
have secret Constitutions. You have secret regulations. You quote two lines from 
the preamble to the Constitutions of the U. S. Council, adopted in 1881, the whole 
of which reads as follows: 

“The Supreme Council of Sovereign Grand Inspectors-General, Thirty-third 
and last Degree of the Ancient Accepted Scottish Rite of Freemasonry for the 
United States of America, their Territories and dependencies; founded upon the 
Constitutions of 1762, and organized in the city of New York on the 28th day of 
October, A. D. 1807, possesses within itself all the characteristic attributes of 
sovereignty. 

“It may create and establish bodies of the various grades subordinate to it; 
direct and control the principles and rituals propagated by them; enact and en¬ 
force laws and regulations for their government; also determine, in every partic¬ 
ular, all the affairs and interests of the Rite within its Jurisdiction. 

“In the exercise of these high powers and prerogatives, it adopts the follow- 


- 8 - 


ing Constitutions, Statutes and General Regulations for its own government and 
that of its constituents.” 

You also make two other quotations, which you say are from the same pre¬ 
amble, as follows: 

“This also occurs in the Preamble: 

“ ‘Although this Royal and Sublime Order has always sustained itself in honor 
and credit by the wisdom and prudence of its Secret Constitutions (!), as ancient 
as the world,’ etc. 

“Again in the same Preamble: 

“ ‘Consequently, in order to maintain ourselves, as well as our sublime Knights 
and Princes of the*Sublime Masonry, our brethren, in that happy state and con¬ 
dition and by their advice it has been resolved, settled and determined, that in 
addition to the ancient and Secret Constitutions (!) of the August Order of the 
Sublime Princes of Masonry/ etc.” 

You knew it was not there when you wrote it so. I have given the pre¬ 
amble and what you say it contains, in full, that any one can see how you 
have deliberately, wilfully, maliciously and villainously lied. You make a 
grand display of the innate depravity of your nature when you pretend to 
quote from Article XXV of the Constitutions of 1762, for you knew that said 
Article XXV is no more like what you have written, than the Lord’s Prayer. 
Evidently you have wholly lost all sense of honor, decency, or shame (if you 
ever had any to lose.) You also quote from the Macoy & Sickels “ History 
and Constitutions of the A. & A. S. R.” which was published in 1862, and say it is 
a Cerneau authority, yet one of the authors of that “ History” is Daniel Sickels 
who is an active member of your N. J. Council. As you have referred to the 
row in your Council in 1860, I think it will not be out of place to quote some facts 
connected therewith from a N. J. pamphlet published at La Porte, Ind. (M. & J. 
Cullaton, Printers) in the early part of 1867, entitled “A comprehensive sketch 
of the A. A. S. Rite, published under the authority of the Grand Consistories 
S. P. R. S. of Michigan, Illinois and Indiana,” N. M. J., as follows : 

“At the opening of that session (May, 1860) there were strong indications of 
insubordination. K. H. Van Renssealer, one of the Deputies of the Supreme 
Council, but not an acting (voting) member, having vainly sought the appoint¬ 
ment of Lieutenant Grand Commander, rendered vachnt by the death of Dunlap, 
resolved to overthrow the Supreme Council and erect another upon its ruins. 
But the business of the annual session was completed, and the Supreme Council 
closed, those who were not active members of the Council being prevented from 
embarrassing its proceedings. In August of the same year (I860,) a special meet¬ 
ing of the Supreme Council was convened to consider charges preferred against 
one of its honorary members. He was expelled. On the day following Van 
Renssalaer, attempting to have the matter reconsidered, was ruled out of order, 
and the Supreme Council closed until the following day. Upon this announce¬ 
ment by the Grand Commander, Van Renssalaer openly and defiantly declared 
that there would be a meeting of the Supreme Council at 4 p. m. of that day . 

“Upon the day following the Supreme Council convened, and as unmistakable 
evidences of insubordination had appeared, and an attempt to overthrow and dis¬ 
organize the Supreme Council, was evidently making, the Grand Commander de¬ 
clared, as was his prerogative, that the Supreme Council was closed. Van 
Renssalaer again led the way in rebellion, by announcing that the Supreme Coun¬ 
cil would assemble that afternoon. A meeting of the insubordinates was in fact 
held, and continued for several days. Moore and Van Renssalaer, together with 
other 33° (honorary members of the Supreme Council) forming a spurious body, 
to which they gave the name of ‘ Supreme Council.’ 


— 9 — 


“ As a part of the plan for overthrowing the legal and constitutional au¬ 
thorities of High Masonry, these men addressed to the Chiefs and members of the 
A. and A. Rite, circulars filled with misrepresentations. Van Renssalaer, by 
whose personal efforts the establishment of most of the Scotch bodies west of 
New England had been formed, succeeded in moulding a large portion of these 
to his own view, the prize being the office of Grand Commander, ad vitam, of the 
Northern Jurisdiction. Moore, whose position as Grand Secretary of the Grand 
Lodge of Massachusetts, and publisher of the Freemason’s Magazine, gave him 
access to the masonic public, plied hie vocation with industry; and these two, one 
with the pen and the other with the tongue, partially succeeded, like Absalom, in 
‘ stealing the hearts of the men of Israel.’ The ‘ Council’ speedily filled its mem¬ 
bership, and elected its officers, giving to Van Renssalaer the coveted reward. 
Deputies were appointed in several States, and all the machinery of Scotch 
Masonry put into operation to persuade the world of their legitimacy. By these 
means certain foreign powers are said to have given a brief recognition to their 
schismatic body, and for a year the triumph of schism and rebellion seemed sure. 

“But the exaltation of the wicked is brief, Hubbard, with his acute percep¬ 
tion of truth, was among the first to discern the error into which he had been 
led, and thus wrote to Raymond as early as February 22, 1861, his recantation: 

“ ‘Had I been possessed of the fact communicated by you to me subsequently, 
and of which I was at the time wholly ignorant, I would by no means have given 
my assent,'; and consequently I wish and authorize you to consider that assent 
and approval as suspended or revoked, and as having been given under mis¬ 
apprehension.’ ” 

It will hardly appear strange that a row started at that time, when the fact is 
recalled that you received the 33° in that Council on the 18th of May, 1860. It 
further appears that you and Van Rensselaer were both from Ohio and that the 
fuss started because Robinson was appointed Lieut. Gr. Com. instead of Van- 
Rensselaer, and not on account of any trouble in regard to secret constitutions. 
We U. S. Jurisdiction Masons are willing to make notes of all the facts we can get, 
but have learned from experience that what you call facts are from being so, and 
we prefer to rely on other more unbiased and unprejudiced authorities for those on 
which to place any great dependence. And in this connection it is perfectly safe 
to say that not one in a thousand of your N. J. followers know anything about 
the real facts, or history of their Scottish Rite pedigree. They have taken your 
distorted and perverted statements as gospel truth and repeated them “parrot 
fashion” until they would hardly know a plain, honest, straightforward statement 
when they heard or read one. 

It may be of interest to some of your N. J. friends to read some more facts 
concerning that famous row from the same document above referred to, and 
will continue to quote as follows- 

“The members of the Supreme Council at the time of this rebellious outbreak, 
(May, 1860) were Edward A. Raymond, Sov. G. Commander; Simon W. Robinson, 
G. Treasurer Gen.; Charles W. Moore, G. Secretary Gen., and William B. Hub¬ 
bard. There were five vacancies. 

“There were not, and there could not be, according to the Constitution, any 
more than nine members of the Council. These, and these only, constituted the 
Supreme Council. Other persons, having received the 33d degree, could sit in 
the Council, and were allowed to participate in its discussions, but not in its 
doings. They could debate, but they could not vote, for the reason that they 
were not members of the Council, and only nine persons could be members; 
and each of these, according to the Constitution, must be appointed thereto 
by the Sovereign G. Commander. 


“When these men met at four o’clock in the afternoon, according to a notice 
given by Van Rensselaer, who were present? Charles W. Moore, G. Sec. Gen.; 
Albert Case, K. H. Van Rensselaer, John Christie and C. R. Starkweather. Only 
one of this company was a member of the Supreme Council. 

“These five men resolved themselves into a Supreme Council; put one of their 
number into the Chair, who was not a member and proceeded to fill other 
vacancies, by electing three of their own number into the vacant offices and so 
into their Supreme Council. 

“The Constitution required that these offices should be filled by the appoint¬ 
ment of the Sov. G. Commander, but the Sov. G. Commander was not there. 
Three of the four members of the Council were not there. The Charter was not 
there. Nobody was there, who belonged to the Council, but the Secretary! 

“This self-appointed Committee of five met and took into their hands the 
power of the Supreme Council. They usurped its authority, and paid no atten¬ 
tion to the Constitution which they had sworn to obey. Wiih only one member 
present, they proceeded to change its fundamental laws. 

“This spurious body published its rebellious acts as the Proceedings of the 
Supreme Council, and in connection with the lawful doings of the Council. 

“Says Grand Commander Raymond, in his Annual Address: 

“ ‘These Proceedings were printed and clandestinely circulated in distant 
parts of our Jurisdiction for weeks and months, before they were allowed to see 
the light in this part of the Jurisdiction.’ 

“It appears, that by removal and resignation and death the number of the 
Council had been reduced in 1860, to four. Out of the number of 33rds the Sov. 
G. Commander according to the constitution, had the power to select five to fill 
the vacancies, and complete the constitutional number of the Council, which he 
subsequently did. But before he did so, one of the Council, in company with a 
few other persons who had received the 33rd degree, undertook the task of 
changing the Constitution and deposing the Sov. Grand Commander. 

“This piece of Masonic rebellion and secession is defended on the ground, that 
these persons were members of the Council, and being in a majority had the 
right to make this change. But, as has been said before, the Constitution of 
1786, which makes the Council to consist of nine members holding specific offices, 
to which they are appointed by the Sov. G. Commander, elfectually annihilates 
this argument. 

“A delegation from the secession body, who had received some accession by 
conferring the 33rd on Messrs. Lewis, Parkman, Sutton and others, went to New 
York for the special purpose of negotiating a treaty of union with the Council 
then established, known as the “Cerneau” body. They took much pains to obtain 
an interview in order to effect a union, which they well knew would give them 
great strength, and completely cover their fatal defects. These gentlemen met a 
committee of the Cerneau Council at the St. Nicholas Hotel. 

“The negotiations failed, and the seceders returned to Boston, without hav¬ 
ing accomplished their healing purpose. The cause of their failure, the 3 e gentle¬ 
men undoubtedly understood. Their visit to New York clearly recognized the 
authority of the Cerneau Council, and their propositions to that Council are 
sufficient evidence of their appreciation of the claims of that Council as a lawful 
body, with a rightful Jurisdiction. It is now quite too late for these persons, and 
their associates in secession, to cast contempt upon the authority of a body with 
whom they sought an alliance in which they signally failed. The Cerneau Council 
has thus received the endorsement of Van Rensselaer, Moore, Case, Lewis and 
Sutton. 

“Failing in this attempt at a union, or consolidation, or amalgamation, or 
whatever would heal or hide their masonic rebellion they then resorted to a 
course which plainly showed how little confidence Ithey had in the truth and 
justice of their own cause. 


—11 


“ For the information of the reader it may be well to state, that the Council 
having its Grand East at New York, and with which the Supreme Council of the 
Northern Jurisdiction has now been united, was established at New York, in 1806, 
by Joseph Cerneau, by virtue of his Patent as G. Ins. General. He had previously, 
in 1801, in connection with another Inspector General, established a Supreme 
C Mined in St. Domingo. In consequence of the revolution, Cerneau tied to Cuba, 
and thence came to the United States, and here organized a Grand Council. In 
1812 a Supreme Council of G. Ins. General of the 33d degree, of which De Witt 
Clinton was the D. G. Commander, was opened in the city of New York.” 

So it appears that early in your Scottish Rite career, your Van Reneellaer gang 
was actually making love to the “Cerneaus,” but fortunately your suit was re¬ 
jected. The Raymond crowd tried the same thing and were successful and this 
may be one of the causes why you hate the “Cerneaus” so now. Th -5 Raymondites 
felt so good about it'that they said lots of pretty things about us then, which I 
will quote from the same official source as before. 

“ Undismayed by the evil proceedings of 1860 and 1861, described in the last 
chapter, the legitimate rulers of High Masonry in the Northern Jurisdiction, (of 
whom Edward A. Raymond was the head) proceed with dignity and m strict 
accordance with the Constitutions of the Order, to fill the places of the deserters 
and resume labor as a Supreme Council. 

“The principal event in our history since the schismatic proceedings of 1860- 
61, is the union with the ‘Cerneau Council’ at New York, which occurred in 1863, 
and the removal of the Supreme Council back to that city, from whence it was 
deported twelve years before. This proceeding is particularly described in the 
last chapter. The history of the Cerneau Council is thus briefly sketched: Joseph 
Cerneau, by profession watchmaker, a native of France, was in 1787 the Master of 
a Lodge of High Masonry in St. Domingo, West Indies. Compelled in 1791, in 
consequence of the insurrection in that island, to fly, he took refuge in Cuba, 
where he remained for ten years. 

“In 1801 he returned to St. Domingo, and in conjunction with Germain Hac- 
quet, a lawyer, established a Supreme Council, 33d at that place, by virtue of law¬ 
ful Patents as Deputy Grand Inspectors General held by them. In August, 1806, 
Cerneau removed to New York, and in 1807 formed at that place a Grand Con¬ 
sistory 32d, the celebrated De Witt Clinton, Cadwallader D. Coiden, Martin Hoff¬ 
man, and other distinguished masons of that period being his subordinate officers, 
out of this body, the Councils of Cryptic Masonry and the Commanderies of 
Knights Templar in the United States eventually sprung. In 1812, a Supreme 
Council S. G. I. G. was opened at New York under the same suspices, De Witt 
Clinton taking the position of Deputy (Lieutenant) Grand Commander. 

“ February 13,1832, this body united with sundry Chiefs of High Masonry in 
the Canary Islands, South America, etc. and formed the ‘United Supreme Council 
for the Western Hemisphere, ’ which continued in existence until 1863. Among 
the members of this body were such men as Lafayette, Elias Hicks, Jeremy L. 
Cross, Salem Town, James Herring, and others of Masonic fame. Thus it is sgen 
that the branch of High Masonry emanating from Joseph Cerneau, maintained 
one unbroken existence through persons of the first talent and standing for nearly 
sixty years. Immediately following the events of l s 60 and 1861, the schismatic body 
at Boston deputized Messrs. Lewis, Parkman, Sutton and others to negotiate a 
treaty of union with this ‘Cerneau Council.’ In conference, they offered complete 
recognition, division of offices, the establishment of head-quarters at New York, 
and all other inducements of this nature. But their propositions were rejected 
with contempt; the radical defect in the schismatic organization at Boston was 
of a nature too gross to be thus covered over or healed. 

« In 1863, a union took place between the Cerneau Council and the Supreme 
Council of High Masonry, of which Raymond was Chief. Edward B. Hays, the 


- 12 - 

Grand Commander of the former, was made the head of the united organization; 
Edward A. Raymond, the Grand Commander of the latter, was made Assistant 
Grand Commander; Simon W. Robinson was made First Lieutenant Grand Com¬ 
mander, and Daniel Sickels, Grand Secretary General. The head-quarters of the 
united bodies was removed to New York, where it still continues. Since that 
period, Hays has resigned, Raymond has deceased, and Robinson, by constitu¬ 
tional succession, has become M. P. Sovereign Grand Commander of the Supreme 
Council of the Northern Jurisdiction of the United States. 

“It will be seen, on preceding pages, that the schismatic body centered at 
Boston has made strenuous efforts to perpetuate and extend its power. The in¬ 
fluence derived from the official position of Grand Secretary of the Grand Lodge, 
admittedly very great, has been used to the utmost in Massachusetts, Illinois, and 
Michigan, in two of which States the Grand Secretaries are editors and publishers 
of Masonic periodicals. In Illinois the influence of Chapters and Commanderies 
has also been brought to bear, the schismatic body of that State having gone to 
the unprecedented length of enjoining that applicants for Scotch Masonry must 
have taken all the degrees up to and inclusive of the Commandery! Nothing in 
all Masonic history can be more absurd or unmasonic than this, and such a 
demand, upon the pockets of masons amounts almost to a misdemeanor, as will 
be seen when we compute the cost of degrees in Chicago at more than two hun¬ 
dred dollars. The absurdity of this course is also found in the fact that all the 
Chapter, Council and Commandery degrees used in the United States were manu¬ 
factured out of the Scotch Rite. If the nine degrees worked in these bodies are 
to be counted in the list, then the Secret Master’s degree will be not the fourth, 
but the thirteenth, and an Inspector General is not a 33rd, but a 42nd! No body 
of Scotch Masons in the United States ever before adopted so unmasonic a step. 

“Those who may need to be informed why the degrees of the Scotch Rites are 
conferred upon Master Masons regardless of their having taken any other de¬ 
grees, can be satisfied by considering the following facts: 

“ First: The degrees of the Chapter, Council and Commandery, as we have 
them in this country, are strictly American in origin and locality. They do not re¬ 
semble degrees worked in any other country in the world. If, therefore, no one can 
take the degrees of Scotch Masonry, save a Knight Templar, then Scotch Masonry 
loses its claim to be called cosmopolitan, and becomes strictly American. It 
would follow that a 32d or 33d, made in another country could not visit our con¬ 
sistories, nor we theirs. 

“ Second: The nine degrees of the Chapter, Council and Commandery, as 
hinted in a previous page, were manufactured from the degrees of the Scotch 
Rite, and every translation they contain is found in and communicated through 
the Scotch Rite. It follows that it is superfluous to take those degrees as pre¬ 
paratory to the Scotch Rite. « 

“In saying this, we do not imply any disrespect to the Commandery degrees, 
etc. On the contrary, we value them highly, and recommend every mason to 
receive them. But it is our duty, as Scotch Masons, to point out the precise rela¬ 
tionship in which they stand towards Scotch Masonry. 

“Third: The numbering of the degrees in all the catalogues of the Scotch 
Rite proves that none of the degrees of the Chapter, etc., are to be counted into 
this system. The Secret Masters’ degree is the fourth in progression, being given 
regularly to the Master Mason. 

“ It is not denied that there is some confusion and doubt enveloping the 
origin and history of Scotch Masonry. But the reader will recall the fact that 
quite as much confusion and doubt becloud the history of Blue Lodge Masonry, 
Every question of that sort partakes of the uncertainty of old-time things.”—Cow. 
Sketch , p. 55 . 

One of the complaints the “Cerneaus” make about your Supreme Council is, 
that in 1866, after Robinson was elected Gr. Com. of the Cerneau-Raymond Con¬ 
solidated Council, he and some others went down to Boston, Mass., where they 


—IS— 


proceeded to organize an entirely new Council and called it a revival of the 
“ busted ” Raymond concern, and left the Cerneaus stranded in New York. It 
was this new Council that Robinson organized in December, 1866, your Van 
Rensselaer gang united with in May, 1867, and is what now constitutes the present 
N. M. J. Council. The Cerneaus didn’t start up again until 1881, but they have 
done considerable work since then, and if you and some others of your kind, will 
continue to keep up the dirty tight you have been making on them, they will 
soon recover their old prestige in the Masonic world, and be known and hailed as 
the only legitimate Supreme Council in the United States. You will observe that 
the pamphlet from which I have quoted so freely, was officially issued in 1867, and 
its issue at that time tends to prove the charge heretofore made, i e. that the facts 
concerning Robinson’s desertion in Dec., 1866, had been effectually suppressed, 
for it is evident, that the Consistories by whose authority that pamphlet was 
issued, knew nothing of the imposition practiced upon them, and still supposed 
that the Grand East of their Supreme Council was at New York, where it right¬ 
fully belonged. In view of the facts quoted, it remains a mystery as to how, or 
why, these Consistories can at this time hold any further allegience to a Supreme 
Council that has all the fatal defects in its organization that your Van Rensselear 
concern had, and which in a few months after it started, took to its bosom the 
viper they had so bitterly denounced. 

You object to having the word “infamous” applied “to many of the most 
prominent and distinguished Masons of Ohio.” If the prominent and distin¬ 
guished Masons you had in mind were Charles E. Stanley, Charley Gerrard, 
Stacker Williams or yourself, I guess we had better let it stand, but if it were 
some others that I might name, we would consent to having the answer amended 
by striking that word out. 

You would convey the false impression to the fraternity, that “Cerneau” 
Masons are not York Rite Masons, but are a lot of expelled and rejected “mater¬ 
ial” whose Masonic pedigree is questionable. It is one of your mean, base insin¬ 
uations that no one but you would resort to. It has not the slightest foundation, 
in fact, and you made it for the sole purpose of creating prejudice. If you had 
been disposed to have been at all fair, or honorable, in your statements, you would 
have said that so far as the Blue Lodge is concerned, all Masons “are dug out of 
the same pit;” that their disagreements commence when they get through the 
Symbolic Lodge and start to “travel” the so-called higher degrees. That the prime 
qualifications for membership in any of the higher bodies in this country is, that 
the applicant shaM be a York Rite Master Mason in good standing. The U. S. Coun¬ 
cil stands by the declarations made*by the Consistories of Michigan, Illinois and 
Indiana, in 1867, which are as follows: 

“If there is anything in law, in regularity of succession, in honest and devoted 
officers, and in fair and gentlemanly dealing, to recommend a cause, our claims 
to those things are indisputable. We come before you with clean hands. Greatly 
admiring the beauty and impressiveness of Scotch Masonry, we open its portals to 
the good and true, and will not close them against the knock of any worthy Mas¬ 
ter Mason. Avoiding those extravagant prices which can only lead to the accum¬ 
ulation of funds for dissipation or evil use, we have set the fees at rates that will 
enable us to maintain the dignity of High Masonry and disseminate our docu- 


OCT 27 1900 


—14 — 

ments upon a generous scale. We do not imitate our adversaries in donating to 
one-half our initiates their entire fees, so that we may charge the other half a 
three fold price, but we lay down a fair and rational fee for all, not desiring by 
cheapness to allure any, or by extortion to prevent any from joining us. In the nec¬ 
essary reply to those taunts and slanders that have been heaped upon us, we have 
only to offer the facts ******* and to ask a candid world to com¬ 
pare our membership, both in numbers and social character, with that of our 
rivals. By such a comparison, and upon such an examination, we are willing to 
stand or fall.”— Com. Sketch ; p. 56. 

Right here I want to digress from the “Cerneau” subject and call your atten¬ 
tion to a matter that Has been rather unfavorably commented upon by some of 
your N. J. friends here, but as it has more than local interest, I will ask you what 
sort of a proposition you intended to make when you wrote the letter of which 
the following is a copy: 

“Knights Templars & Masonic Mutual Aid Asssociation. 

“Office, 271 West Third Street. 

“E. T. Carson, President. 

“Cincinnati, Ohio, Sept. 4, 1888. 

“E. T. Cohen, 

182 Woodland Ave., Cleveland, O., 

“Dear Sir:— You have been notified by the third notice that you 
are in default for the 97th and 98th Assessments. Since then you are also in de¬ 
fault for the 99th, 100th and 101st Assessments. Before cancelling your certifi¬ 
cate, we thought we would write you to ask if it is your wish to drop it. If you 
wish to continue it, and will certify to us in writing, on your Masonic word of 
honor, that you are in your usual good health, we will restore your membership 
on payment of the 101st Assessment, $4.00. 

“To avail yourself of this it will be necessary for you to act at once, sending in 
the amount named. 

“Hoping to hear from you, we are 

“Very Respectfully Yours, 

“E. T. Carson, 
President. 

“ Dictated.” 

It is generally supposed that when a member of such an Association allows 
his certificate to lapse, he can only be reinstated on payment of all past due Assess¬ 
ments and a physician's certificate of good health. Now, Carson, is it possible that 
you have made a proposition in writing which, if accepted, would “cheat, wrong 
and defraud” the paying members of your Association? By what authority do 
you make such offers? Who would stand good for and pay assessments 97, 98, 
99 and 100 if the member in default did not? Have you made any such offers 
that have been accepted, and if so, have you violated any of the rules of your As¬ 
sociation or the laws of the State ? Is it possible that “so great and good a man” 
as you claim to be, would even offer to discount Judas Iscariot and betray the 
trust and confidence of his brethren for four paltry pieces of silver ? This is a 
matter, Carson, that you should rise up and explain before you have any 
more “Cerneau” spasms. It might be well for the members of the K. T. & M. 
M. A. Association to have the affairs of the concern investigated, and to that end 
enlist the services of the State Commissioner of Insurance in their behalf. 

The nastiness that you ring into the aforesaid Appendix “B” shows that you 
are thoroughly conversant with “pool-room deportment and base ball literature,” 


\ 


— 15 — 

and to address you in any other way would be wholly inappropriate and unappre¬ 
ciated. Your claim that the N. J. Scottish Rite was introduced in Ohio in 1851 is 
of no moment, as it is a sort of “Squatter Sovereignty” anyhow. The Cerneaus 
have no need to pay any more attention to it, than the Grand Lodge of Ohio would, 
if it was asked to grant a dispensation for the establishment of a Blue Lodge in ter¬ 
ritory occupied solely by colored Lodges. Furthermore, this delectable institution 
called the Supreme Council for the N. M. J. went on record in 1886 as an un-masonic 
body, by a vote of 23 to 9 and you was one of the 23. Thus we have the spectacle 
presented for contemplation, of the Gr. Lodge of Ohio recognizing as a “Masonic 
Body” a body of so-called Masons, who by their own records declare that they 
are a decidedly un-masonic body. So you assume to be what you are not. You 
preach what you do not practice. To be explicit, you “put on the livery of heaven 
to serve the devil in.” Verily, your “hypocrisy is the necessary burden of your 
villainy,” therefore, your statement that “every Grand Master of the Grand Lodge 
of Ohio, for the past forty years with only two exceptions” were N. J. Scottish 
Riters adds nothing to their fame as Masons, but rather detracts therefrom. 

Your story of the Irishman and the bull ought to be accompanied by a dia¬ 
gram showing which part you played, whether that of the Irishman or the bull. 
You subscribe yourself “not very Respectfully yours,” which is the most consist¬ 
ent thing you could do under the circumstances, for no one after reading your 
address and the Appendix, would charge you with being even respectable. “Be¬ 
hold how good and pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity.” 

Very truly yours, 


F. M. CHANDLER. 



re 


LIBRARY OF 



0 027 273 




h 




